Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 28 May 2015 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A31A82E2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMTVcHxAzC-h for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D0B1A1F16 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iepj10 with SMTP id j10so43318841iep.3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=Or8jDlc+dIlUy3tMbbAV5WElg6R9RLYv18qpJfwHdbs=; b=uXSpxUfcEOUv75yeRsrPsr+qPu6RIc+SvfmNsPlAZm7eLwNT6nxt1094qWemc2R7a2 RRy82qJQWFwynOLdUzrZOBypCSEr0TLWnjIVbqz8QyyEXpSeqqjumWhZLiZ03z+WjTMQ 8XsiNumeFK+ZoKwMO1DqIpTMbnB6FeMa/cQkBE/tlpuRQkfyNUgAh4IDL32yDN6lR68c a/kNg6+MjBGM5OHh0TDylRb8LFevc2aGhea7ZcFoqfWaAHcgvkfxV9C3HM1cwUOuhYMa E/zU2UFfBj8tjZ5a/wBYtvc9s2J2Yy6n5mE/Utd6JDrGYtrDT0xwstQXcG+Ne3F1hUaR moGQ==
X-Received: by 10.42.81.201 with SMTP id a9mr10884870icl.9.1432833065830; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h33sm2185074iod.12.2015.05.28.10.11.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E62AB7AE-008D-4507-8747-D9A93D953616"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150528170435.GQ85071@mx2.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:11:03 -0700
Message-Id: <763565D0-92BF-4A1B-9C1D-C9AC94A57506@gmail.com>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net> <20150528170435.GQ85071@mx2.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/EMV7LA4NCBXfxvO6EOCpSRzhdpA>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:11:08 -0000

> On May 28, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> I like this text.

As do I.  Ship it!

Bob

> 
> A
> 
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:15:55AM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Eliot:
>> 
>>> I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).
>> 
>> Ok.
>> 
>> Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account:
>> 
>> “The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
>> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
>> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
>> in place and implemented in preceding years.
>> 
>> The remaining step is an updated agreement with
>> ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
>> outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:
>> 
>>   o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
>>      is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
>>      acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>> 
>>   o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
>>      parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
>>      operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
>>      part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
>>      out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
>>      current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
>>      [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
>>      operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
>>      a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
>>      ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
>>      minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
>>      or other resources currently located at iana.org.
>> 
>> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
>> decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
>> Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
>> agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
>> perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
>> agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially
>> complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination
>> as a final step.
>> 
>> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
>> with other parts of the process may bring additional
>> tasks that need to be executed either before or
>> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
>> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
>> the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust
>> has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if
>> asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this
>> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
>> execution once the decision is made. From our
>> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
>> however.
>> 
>> In addition, the names community has proposed the
>> creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
>> agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
>> and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​
>> ransition would take place as described above.  That is
>> our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
>> further action from the IETF, more work and community
>> agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
>> cannot be set until the scope is known.”
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan